by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Fly on the Wall

Harish Gupta 

Dipke's Defining Dilemma

Abhijeet Dipke may soon face the biggest political test of his fledgling movement—not from the government, but from success itself. As the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) gains visibility and attracts disgruntled sections of society, the inevitable question is surfacing: Should it remain a pressure group or take the electoral plunge?

For the moment, Dipke has been making all the right noises. He has neither announced plans to launch a political party nor categorically ruled one out. The ambiguity appears deliberate, allowing the movement to broaden its support base without frightening away those who are united by a cause rather than ideology.

History, however, offers a cautionary tale. Arvind Kejriwal's anti-corruption movement began with repeated assertions that it would never enter electoral politics. The promise did not survive the momentum of the agitation. The movement transformed into a political party, and won power in Delhi and elsewhere. But the transition also diluted the moral authority that had made the movement powerful. But Kwejriwal also fell into the same political trap.

Dipke would do well to study that journey carefully. Pressure groups often wield influence disproportionate to their size. They can mobilise public opinion, force governments to negotiate, shape legislation and hold political parties accountable without carrying the baggage of elections, alliances and ideological compromises. The moment a movement contests elections, priorities change. Winning seats begins to overshadow winning causes. Many view his sudden rise with suspicion too as he had not gained much traction after he landed at the Delhi airport. But how the CJP became a phenomenon after June 20 raises RSS' suspicion.

Whether Dipke resists that political temptation could determine the future of the CJP. Remaining a non-partisan pressure group may limit its formal power but preserve its credibility. Becoming a political party could open the doors to government—while risking the very identity that gave the movement its appeal. The choice may ultimately define not just Dipke's career, but the legacy of the movement itself.

Congress MP's Role Gives PMO a Lifeline

Political circles are still trying to decode the unexpected role played by Congress Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha in bringing activist Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike to an end.

Until then, the Modi government had been scrambling to defuse the crisis. After the events at Jantar Mantar on July 20, officials feared the situation could spiral further. Sources say the PMO had activated every available channel to persuade Wangchuk to call off his fast. That is where Tankha entered the picture.

The senior Congress leader shared a close rapport with Wangchuk, having successfully represented him in the Supreme Court after his detention under the National Security Act (NSA). His appeal, therefore, carried far more weight than that of any government emissary. Tankha has maintained that he intervened solely because he was worried about Wangchuk's deteriorating health. However, political insiders claim government intermediaries quietly reached out to him after their own efforts failed to produce results.

Whether Tankha acted entirely on humanitarian grounds or also became an unwitting bridge between the government and Wangchuk is now the subject of intense political chatter. What is beyond dispute is that the hunger strike ended dramatically—and the PMO appeared to have escaped an increasingly uncomfortable political crisis. The full story, insiders insist, is yet to emerge.

Who Is Gunning for Gadkari?

Why has Union Road Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari suddenly landed in the cross hairs over the E-20 ethanol blending policy?

That is the question puzzling many within the government.

The irony is hard to miss. Gadkari neither heads the ministry that frames the ethanol policy nor is he its decision-maker. Yet, among all the faces associated with E-20, he has emerged as the principal target of the growing campaign against it.

The protests themselves are unusual. Unlike campus movements driven by students, the resistance to E-20 is being spearheaded by owners of older vehicles—taxi operators, transporters and motorists with pre-2015 models. Their numbers are relatively small, but the agitation has begun attracting political backing, giving it a larger profile.

Gadkari has remained unapologetic. He has repeatedly defended ethanol-blended fuel and challenged critics to produce credible, scientifically verified evidence.That, however, has not stopped the attacks.

According to insiders, government agencies are trying to understand why Gadkari has become the face of the controversy. Intelligence agencies are said to be examining whether organised lobbying or vested commercial interests are amplifying the campaign. Some officials are also exploring whether foreign interests, particularly from oil-exporting Gulf nations that could be affected by India's push towards ethanol, are attempting to influence the narrative. So far, no evidence has been made public to support such a link.

For now, one question continues to hang in the air: Is this merely an agitation over fuel, or is there a bigger game unfolding behind the scenes?

Jha Becomes Nitish's Shadow

Nitish Kumar's transition from Patna to Parliament has been remarkably low-profile. After taking oath as a Rajya Sabha member on April 10, 2026, the former Bihar Chief Minister has been attending the Upper House during the Monsoon Session. However, the spotlight has largely remained elsewhere, with the CJP agitation and repeated disruptions dominating Parliament's attention. It has been observed that the  JD(U) working national president, Sanjay Kumar Jha, is always with him like a shadow. The Rajya Sabha TV has never shown the presence of Nitish Kumar and nor his entry and exit captured by cameras. Nitish, however, has posted on X that he had participated in the RS proceedings for the first time as a member.

The corridors of Parliament are abuzz with whispers that Nitish often struggles to recognise fellow Mps, leaving Jha to quietly introduce colleagues. Some MPs even claim he has occasionally failed to identify prominent national leaders, leading to awkward moments and renewed speculation about his fading memory and political sharpness.

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Fly on the Wall

Harish Gupta

Why Modi Blinked!

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's decision to ease the political pressure on Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan caught even seasoned BJP watchers off guard. The move came far sooner than many had anticipated, fueling speculation over what forced the government's hand.

According to sources, the Centre had received alarming intelligence inputs suggesting that anti-social elements had infiltrated the student protests and were attempting to provoke extreme acts, including a possible self-immolation bid. Security agencies were reportedly concerned that any such incident could trigger nationwide unrest and hand the Opposition a powerful political narrative.

The agitation, initially confined to a few places, has steadily spread to several state capitals. Political groups, including Chandrashekhar Azad's Bhim Army, Left organizations and other activist networks, had also joined the protests, giving the movement a wider political dimension.

The government's swift response stands in sharp contrast to its handling of the farmers' agitation. During the year-long protest against the three farm laws, despite over 700 reported deaths—largely attributed to illness, accidents, harsh weather and a few suicides—the Modi government held its ground for nearly a year before finally withdrawing the legislation. This time, however, the government blinked within just 49 days.

Another factor believed to have influenced the government's thinking was the RSS. Party insiders say RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat spoke to Modi and favoured an early political resolution to prevent the agitation from snowballing. Significantly, during the protests, Bhagwat publicly remarked that "the youth need discussion, not dictation," —a message widely interpreted as advice to the government.

Whether it was intelligence warnings, organizational counsel, or a combination of political calculations, one thing is clear: the government concluded that allowing the confrontation to escalate carried risks far greater than making an early tactical retreat.

Govt. Soft for CJP?

A section of the Congress ecosystem remains convinced that the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) is less a spontaneous outfit and more a BJP-backed political experiment. The theory is that the party was floated to fragment student anger and deny the Opposition parties any political dividends of the agitation. Whether that claim holds water is impossible to verify. But what has certainly raised eyebrows is the government's unusually accommodating approach towards the CJP.

The police crackdown during the July 20 protest and Modi's sudden blinking does little to alter that perception. Most of those targeted were not CJP activists but supporters who had joined the agitation independently. The sequence of events has only deepened the intrigue. On June 6, Delhi Police reportedly cleared the CJP's Jantar Mantar protest within minutes, despite no prior application. CJP leader Abhijeet Dipke, who landed from the US that morning, is said to have filed the application at the airport itself and received immediate approval. Instead of facing detention, the organizers found official cooperation.

The pattern continued when the CJP secured permission for another protest, paving the way for Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike from June 28. Even more striking, after police dismantled the protest stage on July 20, officers reportedly supervised its reconstruction later that night.

Each episode may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. Collectively, however, they have reinforced the Opposition's charge that the authorities have extended an uncommon degree of official courtesy to the CJP—far more than most protest groups can expect.

Pradhan's Exit Rings Alarm Bells in Odisha

Until recently, Dharmendra Pradhan and Bhupender Yadav were widely regarded as the BJP high command's two most trusted lieutenants. Both were once tipped as front-runners for the party presidency. Instead, the leadership stunned observers by choosing the relatively low-profile Nitin Nabin.

Since then, fortunes have shifted. Yadav has come under scrutiny after four members of his personal staff, including his private secretary, were removed at the PMO's instance. Pradhan, meanwhile, has now exited the Union Cabinet.

Ironically, Pradhan had also missed the chance to become Odisha's first BJP Chief Minister after the party's historic victory in 2024. While many expected him to lead the government, the BJP sprang another surprise by picking Mohan Charan Majhi. With Majhi facing mounting criticism over his administration, Pradhan's exit from the Cabinet may not diminish his political clout. If anything, it could free him to focus on Odisha politics—a prospect that is unlikely to comfort the incumbent Chief Minister. Pradhan is a trusted RSS man and his graph has not fallen as he had offered to quit the post twice earlier.

Prahlad Joshi's Biggest Test

Dharmendra Pradhan may have exited the Education Ministry under a cloud, but his successor, Prahlad Joshi, inherits the same unresolved headache—the National Testing Agency (NTA). Created in 2017 as an autonomous body to conduct India's premier entrance examinations, the NTA was meant to professionalise and streamline the testing process. Instead, it has become synonymous with paper leaks, logistical failures and repeated questions over its credibility.

The agency's biggest weakness is structural. Despite conducting some of the country's largest examinations, it reportedly operates with a permanent workforce of barely 25 officials, relying heavily on private contractors for printing, transportation and IT infrastructure and an army of contractual employees. That dependence has repeatedly exposed vulnerabilities in the handling of confidential question papers, with marquee examinations such as NEET-UG and UGC-NET hit by major leak controversies.

The obvious comparison is the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Despite conducting equally sensitive nationwide examinations for decades, the UPSC has largely maintained an unblemished record through tightly controlled, compartmentalized systems and minimal outsourcing. For Joshi, the challenge goes beyond damage control. Unless the NTA is fundamentally overhauled, every examination season will remain a political and administrative minefield—and every Education Minister will continue to pay the price.

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Fly on the Wall

Harish Gupta

Less Govt, More Governance — really?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has often championed the slogan: "Less Government, More Governance." But that mantra may soon face its toughest test if Parliament eventually decides to substantially increase the strength of the Lok Sabha and state assemblies through the Delimitation bill.

The question being asked in political circles is simple: How does adding nearly 300 more MPs translate into less government? The proposal to expand the Lok Sabha from the present 543 members to around 850, coupled with a corresponding increase in MLAs across the states, is expected to impose a massive recurring financial burden. Estimates suggest the additional annual expenditure could exceed ₹6,000 crore or even far more once salaries, allowances, staff, security, pensions, constituency offices and infrastructure are taken into account.

Supporters of expansion contend that India's growing population deserves greater representation. But opponents question whether more legislators necessarily mean better delivery. Public frustration over corruption, absenteeism and poor accountability has hardly arisen because there are too few elected representatives. In an era of digitisation, real-time monitoring and direct benefit transfers, stronger oversight, transparent delivery systems and greater accountability may achieve far more than simply increasing the number of MPs and MLAs. As the debate gathers momentum, the government may have to answer an uncomfortable question: Does bigger government really produce better governance—or merely more government ?

More MPs, More Ministers?

One of the least discussed consequences of a larger Lok Sabha could be an equally larger government. The Constitution caps the size of the Union Council of Ministers at 15 percent of the Lok Sabha's strength. With the present House of 543 members, the ceiling stands at 81 ministers. But if the Lok Sabha is expanded to around 850 members, the permissible strength of the Council of Ministers could rise to as many as 127.

That raises an obvious political question. Modi has consistently advocated the principle of "Less Government, More Governance." Critics argue that a bigger Lok Sabha could produce exactly the opposite—a larger executive, more ministerial berths, higher expenditure and an expanded political establishment.

Supporters may call it a natural outcome of greater representation. Skeptics see it differently: more ministries, more political accommodation and a government that grows in size even as efficiency remains the real challenge.

Why Amit Shah Sacked Delhi's Top Cop

The dust over the unceremonious exit of four bureaucrats working in the office of Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav had not even settled down when another shocker came. This time, it was the turn of Delhi's Police Commissioner Satish Golcha. He was the Home Ministry's handpicked choice despite being relatively junior in the pecking order last year. His appointment had surprised many within the police establishment. The message then was clear—he enjoyed the confidence of the powers that be. But just as suddenly as he rose, he was shown the door. His removal was swift. No explanation. No farewell.

The order removing Golcha has set the rumour mills spinning. Insiders say the decision came directly from the top—Union Home Minister Amit Shah himself.  Several theories are doing the rounds. Some claim he failed to provide an adequate security cover to the Chief Minister, Rekha Gupta. Others point to a series of administrative lapses. But those familiar with developments say the real reason could be far more serious. Sources indicate that the Home Minister received reports pointing to alleged serious cases of corruption. That, it is learnt, was the final straw.

The biggest surprise was that Golcha was not given a posting discarding a convention. He has been asked to report to the Lieutenant Governor's office in Delhi. There is no post in LG's office of DG rank officer. Golcha will have no work, no supporting staff. Such treatment of an officer of his rank is highly unusual and has raised eyebrows across the bureaucracy. Is this merely a temporary cooling-off period? Or is it the beginning of a much bigger crackdown within Delhi Police? In Delhi's power corridors, whispers are growing louder than official answers.

Bihar revives a settled SC principle

Bihar has reignited a constitutional debate that the Supreme Court appeared to have settled 25 years ago. The controversy traces its roots to Punjab politics. In September 1995, after the assassination of Chief Minister Beant Singh, his son, Tej Prakash Singh, was inducted into the Punjab Cabinet despite not being a legislator. A non-member can serve as a minister for six months, provided he or she gets elected within that period. Tej Prakash failed and resigned. However, following a change of leadership in Punjab, he was reappointed as a minister without becoming an MLA.

The move was challenged and in its landmark 2001 judgment in S.R. Chaudhuri vs State of Punjab, the SC struck down the reappointment, holding that the Constitution provides only a one-time six-month window for a non-legislator. It cannot be used repeatedly to bypass the democratic process.

The same principle is now under scrutiny in Bihar. A petition before the Supreme Court challenges the reappointment of Panchayati Raj Minister Deepak Prakash. He was first sworn in by Nitish Kumar on November 20, 2025, despite not being an MLA or MLC. He was not re-inducted by the Samrat Choudhary government when it took oath on April 15, 2026. He was re-inducted on May 7, 2026, after a gap of 22 days—still without entering either House.

The petition argues that the second appointment flies in the face of the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling. Bihar developments have once again brought a significant constitutional question to the nation's doorstep to the limits placed by the Constitution on appointing non-MLAs as ministers.

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Cabinet Reshuffle in Limbo

BJP Focuses on Two-Thirds Majority Before Ministerial Shake-Up

Contours of NCPs in Maharashtra are to be fixed

Harish Gupta

The much-anticipated Cabinet reshuffle in the Modi 3.0 government appears to have been put on hold, with the political arithmetic in Parliament taking precedence over ministerial changes.

Speculation was rife that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would expand and reshuffle his Council of Ministers either before departing on his three-nation tour or immediately after his return. The buzz intensified after the Prime Minister called on President Droupadi Murmu following a series of high-level meetings with senior BJP leaders and ministers. But the expected exercise has not materialised. With the Monsoon Session of Parliament beginning on July 20, the likelihood of a reshuffle before the session now appears remote.

According to sources, the delay is linked to the BJP's efforts to strengthen its numbers in Parliament before undertaking any political or organisational overhaul.

One key development being closely watched is the formal recognition by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla of the 20-member Trinamool Congress breakaway group, now functioning under the banner of the Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI). The process is understood to be moving through procedural stages.

Simultaneously, back-channel discussions are continuing with the NCP (Sharad Pawar) faction. The broad framework of a possible understanding is said to be under discussion, including whether the two NCP factions eventually merge or continue as separate entities while functioning in coordination within the NDA in Maharashtra and Delhi.

Political circles also speak of exploratory contacts with the DMK, a former NDA ally during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, although no concrete outcome has emerged so far.

Sources say the BJP's immediate priority is to edge closer to the two-thirds majority required to comfortably pass constitutional amendment bills. Until that objective becomes clearer, the leadership appears reluctant to undertake a Cabinet reshuffle.

The delay has also pushed back the long-awaited organisational restructuring of the BJP under its youngest-ever national president, Nitin Nabin, suggesting that both the government and the party are waiting for the larger political puzzle to fall into place.

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Fly on the Wall

Harish Gupta

Unprecedented Exits: A Bureaucratic Mystery Deepens

Delhi's bureaucracy has witnessed transfers, reshuffles and even dramatic exits. But what happened in the Union Environment Ministry recently has left even the oldest hands in government baffled. Four members of Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav's personal staff were removed within two days without any official explanation. Among retired and serving bureaucrats, many say they cannot remember another instance in Independent India when an entire ministerial personal establishment was dismantled overnight—except in cases involving espionage or serious national security breaches.

That is what makes the episode so intriguing. Private Secretary Amar Singh, a 2010-batch IRS officer regarded as one of Yadav's closest associates, was repatriated to the Revenue Department and awaiting a new posting. Shailesh Kumar Singh of the Central Secretariat Service was sent back to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) facing a cooling-off period. Additional Private Secretary Ayush Saran and Assistant Private Secretary Siddharth Yadav were sacked with immediate effect.

The government has maintained complete silence over the reasons behind the action. Social media has churned out theories ranging from internal rivalries to larger administrative changes. Yet one fact stands out. Had the removals been linked to corruption or misconduct, disciplinary or vigilance proceedings would ordinarily have followed. Instead, two officers have quietly returned to their parent cadres while the services of the other two have simply ended.

Insiders say that there is something far more sensitive and deeper and a stone wall has been created around the Paryavaran Bhawan. The speculation is that the action has been taken at the instance of the PMO. Since all ministerial appointments pass through the PMO —from the peon to the PS, the removal also has to be cleared by the PMO. Remember reports way back in 2014 saying how Modi's PMO is keeping hawks' eyes on all such appointments. But sacking all personal staff of a Cabinet Minister is considered a sign of governance failure in the ministry. For now, the government isn't talking. But silence often speaks louder than an official statement. The malice has to be far deeper than envisaged.

Now Battle Over Lawrence Bishnoi

The FBI's latest crackdown on organised crime operating across the US, Canada and Europe has thrown up an intriguing problem for India. Reason: The US will seek high-profile gangster Lawrence Bishnoi extradition which may become the next battle between India and the United States.

Bishnoi, currently lodged in the high-security Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad, has been behind bars since his arrest in Punjab in 2015. He faces over 20 criminal cases spanning Punjab, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The FBI indictment alleges that parts of his criminal enterprise extended into American jurisdiction.

Legally, the path exists. India and the US have operated under the 1997 Extradition Treaty for nearly three decades. The US has extradited 11 fugitives to India, while India has handed over more than a dozen to American authorities.

Recently, Nikhil Gupta of India was extradited from the Czech Republic to the US in 2024 over an alleged plot to assassinate Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. In return, the US extradited Tahawwur Rana to India in April 2025 to face trial in the 26/11 Mumbai terror case. However, the key conspirator David Headley was never extradited after pleading guilty in a US court. Instead, he testified via video link before an Indian court.

Bishnoi's case, however, is more complicated. Unlike Gupta or Rana, he is already in Indian custody. Under the treaty, India could extradite him immediately, prosecute him first and defer surrender, or simply cooperate with US investigators by sharing evidence while retaining his custody. The legal framework is clear. The political and prosecutorial decision is not. Washington will formally seek Bishnoi's extradition—and New Delhi will have a problem in hand as Bishnoi is considered a key to many things. But this case could become one of the most closely watched cross-border criminal law cases in recent years.

Rahul, Modi Read From the Same Script!

In Delhi's bitter political battlefield, Rahul Gandhi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi rarely agree on anything. But the alleged theft of devotees' offerings at the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya has produced an unlikely convergence—both have chosen silence.

The issue has erupted into a full-blown political controversy. Uttar Pradesh Congress chief Ajay Rai led protests in Ayodhya and was briefly detained, while the Samajwadi Party has seized the opportunity to target the Yogi Adityanath government.

Yet Rahul Gandhi has remained conspicuously absent from the debate. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, too, has stayed silent. Congress leaders privately admit the caution is calculated. Any comment, they believe, could revive uncomfortable questions about Rahul's decision not to visit the Ram Temple and reopen old wounds over the Congress government's Ram Setu affidavit.

The silence at the top of the BJP is equally intriguing. Despite the political heat, Prime Minister Modi has remained silent. The official line has been limited to saying that the Special Investigation Team is investigating the matter.

For now, both parties appear to have concluded that speaking carries greater political risk than staying silent. In the high-stakes politics of Ayodhya, silence itself has become a carefully crafted message.

There is another explanation also. The BJP insiders say the silence is actually a well-thought-out strategy to keep Yogi Adityanath in the spotlight. Yogi is taking care of FIRs, arrests and responses.

Finance Ministry Without Finance Secretary for a Year

One of the government's most powerful ministries has been functioning without a full-fledged Finance Secretary for more than a year. Since the retirement of Tuhin Kanta Pandey on June 30, 2025, the Finance Ministry has not appointed a successor to the post. The ministry continues to be run by its six departmental secretaries handling revenue, expenditure, economic affairs, financial services, DIPAM and public enterprises.

Traditionally, the senior-most among these secretaries is designated the Finance Secretary—a convention followed by successive governments. The Modi government, however, appears to have quietly broken with that practice, without offering any explanation.

Although the absence of a Finance Secretary has not disrupted the ministry's day-to-day functioning, the prolonged vacancy has surprised many within the bureaucracy. The year-long vacancy has now become a subject of quiet discussion in bureaucratic circles, raising questions over whether the government intends to revive the convention—or dispense with the post's traditional role altogether.